I went to Radio Survivor a few weeks ago asking their opinion on a community-based radio class, and Paul asked me to write a piece on my thoughts on the subject. Also, it turns out that Paul and I were DJs at the same college radio station, just at different times.
So here you go, my article about CLPFM:
http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2015/07/17/a-middle-ground-between-unlicensed-micropower-lpfm/
macdev your published Radio Survivoer piece is a true landmark in this present interest in creating a gap-filling FM service exactly along the lines you describe.
The can has just been kicked down the road.
Well, it didn't take long and it was quite predictable, but Bill was the first person to post a comment about my piece. Not only did he once again parrot "Part 15 250uv @3m" like he does on *every other site*, he took a complete left turn and started talking about uncertified transmitters. The WH3 is certified, and it's in the FCC's database. So it seems like he's trying to debunk me (us) by making it look like we're the ones that don't know what we're doing.
He also suggests applying for an LPFM construction permit when then window opens, which might not happen for a *decade and a half*, if ever. That's his solution.
This is really sad because we're trying to do things for a community. Why he feels like he has to dump on our work to bring radio to a community is beyond me.
What do you learn in Telemarketing? Rebuttal!! He stated how there were so many non certified FM transmitters out there trying to put out there that this will cause interference. Well to which I have a rebuttal for that too. Raising the field strength will help as more folks will be able to use legally clean transmitters that have been proven to be very clean. Again these transmitters are already out there and the fact that some agents have clearly stated they have no issue with 100 acres of coverage (transmitter in the middle of the area). I don't think the 1/4 mile or 1 mile and maybe 1.5 to a good car Radio is asking too much. The Anti FM's will look on Google daily for any mention of increasing FM so they can try and dump a truck load of negativity onto it hoping we'll just give up and stop the campaign. However we have more folks who are on our side. I found another part 15 FM station in North East, North Carolina (Williamston I think) that is using FM as well as AM. He is on 107.1 FM and 1610 AM so all the anti FM crap can just go away. We can work it out. The band is most likely to expand as I've read articles on this and Prometheus Radio group is behind this. I'm thinking it is not too much to ask if this goes into effect that we can legally have the higher power on a few of these frequencies say 87.9 Mhz for one. This is the opportunity to try and ask for what New Zealand has and that is a Watt but maybe restrict it to stock antenna like the whip or the rubber duck on the transmitter. That still gives good coverage in houses made of wood or if you have the transmitter in a weather proof enclosure. I'm not letting the other websites who try and promote their sites by bible thumping 15:239 (Enough already we know about that). We also know we have the ability to legalize things as already though a gray area there still is the statements of some inspectors. We just want to sort of work things out for everyone. Radio will not fail because of a few neighborhood or as I call block party FM Transmitters. Please grow up and try and work with all of us anyone who may be trying to rain in on what we are trying to accomplish here. Ask yourself this question: Would you rather have the already existing 1 Watt transmitters be out there and as long as no interference is caused the operators can carry on? Or the latter which is the stunt Anonymous pulled (Again I don't condone this)? Its what is starting to happen now and this would have more severe consequences than a few 1 mile stations out there. And note to the anti FM's think VPN, Anonymous proxies, bait transmitters, and so on. Look I'd rather see clean harmonic free transmitters with the mandatory scan feature as I've discussed. If one or 4 channels are set aside it only could make things better for everyone.
I responded to Bill's comments at that site.
Nice reply 😀
I don't know if the third reply is from someone here, but that's a good reply as well.
I replied as Dj Troy. Could have replied as The Legacy but didn't. Maybe I should next time. Anyways I think we could work together instead of fight. I think he is a NAB member and that is OK too because we're going to have to deal with them sooner or later.
It appears that Mr. DeFelice has chosen to respond to the comments within the safety of his own website.
It also appears in that response that one of his major concerns with the testing described in the referenced article was not using a properly calibrated field strength measuring instrument, such as the Pontiac FIM.
And he does have a point. A certified transmitter was used, and it was proven that >200 feet range could be obtained from a certified transmitter. However, we don't know what the initial field strength of that certified transmitter was. It could have been greater than the 250uv/m that the law allows; it could even have been less. Considering that others have obtained similar results from other, certified transmitters, it's highly unlikely that the Whole House was significantly over the limit (if indeed it was), but it's still something that needs to be looked at.
If we are going to ask the FCC to increase the limits of Part 15 FM, or even establish another class of unlicensed operation, we are going to have to provide solid technical details. About the projected range that such a service would get (and the receivers required to obtain it), and about the testing that was conducted to arrive at that range.
I don't think there's any way around the fact that we are going to need to get some heavy duty instrumentation involved at some point. That's why I believe that the shootout of FM transmitters proposed by Tim is so important. He does have that equipment.
And I suspect that until such equipment is brought into the discussion, we're not going to convince diehard engineers such as Mr. DeFelice, and we're certainly not going to convince governmental agencies such as the FCC.
About the others that are just taking potshots - I think that they should just be ignored. You always have some that want to stir up the pot by being negative, and their opinions are generally worth what they put into them - exactly zero.
At least Mr. DeFelice appears to now be making an effort to inform others of what is bothering him. And that's a start.
...About the projected range that such a service would get (and the receivers required to obtain it), ...
Just to note that the FCC has never (to date) specified the performance requirements of any AM/FM/TV receive system needed to receive such transmissions at a given, "projected" range.
That may indeed be the case, but when looking at potential interference, we are going to have to look at typical ranges for the new service on all types of receivers. It would not be doing anyone a service to state, as an example, that the range would be, say, 800 feet to a typical portable receiver, when you can also receive the signal up to 3200 feet on a sensitive car radio.
The FCC may not care, but the NAB and others surely will, and we're going to have to get any proposal past all objectors.
In the days since I wrote that piece, I've been doing a lot of research on community radio. I've already posted my findings about how the UK allows exactly what I'm trying to do, but there's another aspect to all this that seems to be lost - consolidation of FM radio stations and the loss of diversity in programming. There are people out there, influential people, that are championing the return of community radio and can probably help us get on track to what we want to do.